Back
1979 Supreme(Bom) 124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.S. Dharmadhikari J.
Madhukar Sadashiv Parkhi ... Petitioner.
Versus
Satyabhamabai Ganesh Sakrikar others... Respondents.
Special Civil Application No. 2081 of 1976, decided on 10-7-79.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Mandrekar, for petitioner.
V.H. Gumaste, for respondents.
The interpretation and application of Section 13(1)(I) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, requires consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the proximity of the alternate accommodation to the suit premises, the suitability of the alternate accommodation for the tenant's needs, and the purpose of the Rent Act to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions.
Headnote:
RENT ACT - SECTION 13(1)(I) - SUITABLE RESIDENCE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - TENANT'S ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION - FACTORS TO CONSIDER - SCOPE AND MEANING OF SECTION 13(1)(I) - HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER PROVISIONS - RELEVANCE OF PROXIMITY AND SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION - ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES - COURT'S APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION - PROTECTION OF TENANT'S RIGHTS - AVOIDANCE OF UNREASONABLE EVICTIONS - PREFERENCE FOR INTERPRETATION ENLARGING TENANT PROTECTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the decree for possession of his rented premises granted to the respondent-landlords under Section 13(1)(I) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act). The landlords claimed that the tenant had been allotted suitable alternate accommodation at Bhimanagar, a place 100 miles away from Pune, where the suit premises were located. The tenant contended that the allotment was not suitable for his residence due to his wife's ill health and his frequent visits to Pune. The trial court and the appellate court upheld the landlords' claim, relying on the allotment of alternate accommodation as a ground for possession under Section 13(1)(I).
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the courts below erred in their interpretation and application of Section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act. The court emphasized the need to construe the provision harmoniously with other parts of the Act, particularly Section 2(2) and the Schedules, which specify the areas to which the Act applies. The court also considered the proximity of the alternate accommodation to the suit premises and the suitability of the alternate accommodation for the tenant's needs.
Issues: 1. Whether the allotment of alternate accommodation at Bhimanagar, 100 miles away from Pune, constituted a suitable residence for the tenant under Section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act. 2. Whether the courts below erred in their interpretation and application of Section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suitability of alternate accommodation under Section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act must be assessed in light of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the proximity of the alternate accommodation to the suit premises and the tenant's needs and requirements. 2. The court emphasized that the purpose of the Rent Act is to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions and that the provisions of the Act should be construed in a manner that enlarges, rather than restricts, the protection afforded to tenants. 3. The court found that the tenant had not shifted his residence with his family and belongings to Bhimanagar and that his wife continued to reside in the suit premises. The court also noted that the tenant had been trying to get himself retransferred to Pune and was eventually retransferred during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The court concluded that the alternate accommodation at Bhimanagar was not suitable for the tenant's needs and that the landlords had failed to prove their case under Section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below, and dismissed the landlords' suit for possession of the suit premises.
2. In his written statement, the tenant denied the allegations made in the suit. He also contended that the rent charged was excessive and therefore, standard rent should be fixed. He denied the allegation that he has acquired suitable residential quarters at the Bhimanagar project permanently and according to him his transfer was temporary and he was likely to be retransferred to Pune. He also contended that his wife was ailing and required medical help which was not available at Ujani and, therefore, he required the suit premises at Pune for the use of his wife. He also contended that he was also using the suit premises all along.
3. In support of their case plaintiffs examined Shridhar-Plaintiff No. 6, Suman-plaintiff No. 2, Damodar Devare-the Deputy Engineer from the Public works Department, whereas the defendant examined himself. After framing the necessary issues and appreciating the evidence on record the learned Judge of the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved that they required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their own use and occupation. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs have proved their case about the nuisance and annoyance. It further recorded a finding that the defendant is not using the suit premises for over 6 months before filing of the suit and he has also acquired suitable alternate accomodation at the place of his work and, therefore, he does not require the suit premises any longer. In view of these findings, the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Pune ultimately decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
4. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal which was heard and decided by the Extra Assistant Judge, at Pune. The learned Judge of the appellate Court did not accept the case of the landlords that the defendant has kept the suit premises un-used and locked for a period of 6 months or more immediately prior to the filing of the suit. He also reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court that the conduct of the defendant or his family members amounted to nuisance and or annoyance. The learned Judge also found that the plaintiffs do not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation nor the defendant tenant has committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. However, he recorded a finding in favour of the landlords that the defendant tenant has been allotted a suitable residence at Bhimanagar, and therefore, landlords are entitled to seek possession of house under section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act. Therefore, ultimately the Appellate Court sustained the decree passed by the trial Court on that account and, therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant. Against these orders present writ-petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant.
5. Shri Mandrekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant contended before me that the learned Judges of the commits below have committed an er
